The Ten Commandments in a Public Setting
A Final Word from the U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court's Rulings -
Setting up religious displays by following a few rules

Displaying a replica of the Ten Commandments on public property
doesn't violate the Constitution of the United States –
regardless of public belief, common perception, or media reports.
Rules about displays have come about over the last couple of
generations.

The Supreme Court of the United States has issued a number of
decisions concerning displaying a replica of the Ten Commandments
in a public setting. Relevant pronouncements began with a case in
1947. As a layperson, it seems unlikely that the Supreme Court
will revisit any major issues since decisions in 2005.

The issue begins with Americans trying to understand and live by
the first amendment of the Constitution.

Amendment I.
to the Constitution of the United States of America

Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .

"The Establishment Clause"
"Separation of Church and State"

These two phrases are popular references to the first phrase of
the first amendment. The framers of the Constitution experienced
the tyranny of living under an established religion. The Anglican
Church was the official religion of England. England was was not
especially different from lands in Europe. The Roman Catholic
Church was the official religion throughout Eastern and Central
Europe.

An established religion has a heavy say so in public life, even
to the extent of vetoing laws passed by a parliament, for example.
Other religions or denominations occupy precarious positions.
Adherents may experience periods of toleration and then periods of
persecution. The religious and political climate often follows the
whims of the established religion.

The Law as It Stands since 2005

Mike Schaps writes —

One
may sketch the standard [of the Supreme Court's Establishment
Clause] as follows: Government cannot favor one religion
over another, or act to benefit religion over nonreligion,
unless a government
practice promotes nonsectarian religion only slightly and is so
deeply
woven into our national traditions that enjoining it would be
highly divisive. Although this standard may appear
unworkably vague at first glance,
decades of Supreme Court Establishment Clause cases sufficiently
calibrate
it so as to make it judicially workable. That is, it
provides adequate guidance to lower courts in all but a relatively
narrow range of
Establishment Clause cases. (p. 1244)